College Do Porn

College Do Porn
Style | 22 Women Say They Were Exploited by Porn Producers
22 Women Say They Were Exploited by Porn Producers
Their lawsuit, a rare look into an opaque industry, seeks $22 million in damages.
As a subscriber, you have 10 gift articles to give each month. Anyone can read what you share.
In a trial that began on Aug. 19 in San Diego Superior Court, nearly two dozen young women say that they responded to Craigslist ads seeking models and were then tricked into performing in internet pornography. “Wanted,” an ad would read: “beautiful college type preppy girls,” for video and photo shoots.
The ads turned out to be from producers behind a website called Girls Do Porn, who were seeking women to make so-called amateur porn, a style in which fresh-faced new actresses are often paired with seasoned male performers. The trial could last a month, but no matter its outcome it will provide a rare look into a part of the industry that remains shrouded in mystery — often intentionally, by its makers.
Respondents to the Craigslist ads said they were directed to innocuous websites , with pictures of clothed women, that asked for their contact information and photographs.
Instead of being offered modeling jobs, however, they were offered roughly $5,000 to make pornography, they said. But they did it, a number of them now say, based on the assurance, from the producers and their associates, that the videos would be distributed only on DVD outside of the United States and would never be published online.
The producers did publish the videos online, on Girls Do Porn, which specializes in amateur porn. The clips were also distributed to major sites, like Pornhub.
Shortly after the videos were posted, the women’s names and identifying information popped up on a site called PornWikileaks, which identifies people who have done porn.
Those are some of the allegations in a legal action brought by 22 women, identified as Jane Does, including a former law student who worked to organize the group. The women are seeking $22 million in damages from the people involved with making the videos. They also want their videos removed from the website.
The testimony of the women offers an unusual look at the specifics of how people are recruited to participate in so-called amateur pornography.
Mike Stabile, a spokesman for the Free Speech Coalition, a porn industry trade group, said his organization has received more reports of unscrupulous producers in the last decade that in years before. “With the changes in technology, you have a lot more fly-by-night companies,” Mr. Stabile said. They run shoots that he described as “unethical if not illegal.”
Reports that women who are recruited for the porn business face mistreatment have long accompanied the industry, but reliable data is scarce. Even prominent performers have told of being mistreated by producers, agents or fellow actors.
Mia Khalifa, a former porn performer whose videos have been viewed millions of times, recently reported that she was paid $12,000 in her three-month porn career, and warned young women not to enter the business.
The case consolidates three lawsuits and names three defendants and the l egal entities the defendants operate.
Those three are Michael J. Pratt, the chief executive of GirlsDoPorn.com; Andre Garcia, an actor; and Matthew Wolfe, a videographer. Their lawyers said they will show that the women signed contracts that said the videos they made could be “used anywhere, anyhow, for any purpose.”
The women also recorded videotaped statements to say they were not under the influence of drugs or mind-altering substances, and that they consented to the videos being used in any way, according to court documents.
“In our view, the women’s regret over their decision to make pornographic videos was and remains the primary motivation for this lawsuit,” Aaron Sadock, a lawyer representing the defendants, wrote in an email. Their complaint, he said, seems based on the idea that “young adult women are incapable of making their own decisions, good or bad, and consequently should not be bound by the contracts they signed.”
Lawyers for the women argue that it is part of Girls Do Porn’s business model to mislead women and coerce them into signing contracts. The women say they want their own videos removed and other women told how videos will be used in the future.
Brian Holm, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said his clients, wanted to bring the case, “as a P.S.A. to the world, to put everyone on notice, that this was going on.”
Early in the trial, Amberlyn Clar k testified that she worked for Girls Do Porn as a reference for young women, a role that included misleading recruits. Ms. Clark said that she was paid to deceive prospective performers, and to assure them the videos would never be posted online.
Another woman in Ms. Clark’s role wrote a text message to a recruit that read: “I’m sure you’re nervous or maybe even sketched out a little bit but you seriously have nothing to worry about! It’s completely legit.”
She continued: “There is absolutely no way anyone will find out.”
And Jane Doe 15 testified on Monday that she understood there was a small chance the clips would appear on the internet, but her worries had been eased.
“I had been assured that after hundreds of videos that this had never happened,” she said.
The women who appeared in the videos say the producers bought them flights and booked rooms at upscale San Diego hotels. But once the women arrived, they said, they were told they couldn’t be paid the agreed-upon price . Promised $5,000, some were paid $400; others, $2,000.
Producers presented the women with documents to sign, the women said, and were told they could be sued for the cost of the flight and hotel room.
A few months after filming, the women said, the videos appeared on Girls Do Porn and other major porn sites. Shortly after, they claim the defendants posted the women’s legal names, hometowns, social media accounts and pictures online. The women said that producers also sent clips to their families and college classmates.
Lawyers for the producers denied this. “What Plaintiffs complain about are the actions of third parties — ‘internet trolls’ — who ferreted out the names of the women on the internet,” according to their filings.
“I had to drop out of college to avoid ongoing harassment from classmates,” a plaintiff, identified as Jane Doe 6, said in the lawsuit. “I have been harassed at work about the video to the point that I had to quit. I am now scared to apply for new jobs.”
The defendants’ lawyers also said the producers never agreed to limit distribution to a single buyer or DVD release.
“Logic dictates plaintiffs had no basis to expect the video would languish in a video store in Australia on an anachronistic DVD format,” lawyers for the producers wrote in their filings.

The lawsuit claims the "porn scheme" was hatched by actor Ruben “Andre” Garcia (left), co-owner and videographer Matthew Wolfe (middle), and owner Michael Pratt (right).
Craigslist ads linked back to modeling websites like ModelingGigs[dot]com. According to the lawsuit, the owners of Girls Do Porn's website own these sites as well.

Copyright © 2022 NBCUniversal Media, LLC. All rights reserved

Follow Us

Facebook

Twitter

Instagram

A woman testified in court on Wednesday to an elaborate scheme hatched by three men who operate a San Diego-based pornography website to get her and 21 other women into appearing in a sex video.
The woman, known only as Jane Doe 15, is the first plaintiff to testify in the civil trial against popular adult website, Girls Do Porn, its owner Michael Pratt, videographer Matthew Wolfe, and actor and director Ruben Andre Garcia.
During her testimony, the woman described what her attorneys call an “elaborate scheme” to convince her and hundreds of other women to appear in sex videos which were later posted to some of the most popular websites in the world.
Jane Doe 15 said she was 18-years-old and attending college in 2016 when she found an ad on Craigslist for a modeling gig. She had been on the job hunt in order to help pay for tuition, room and board when she found the ad posted on her city’s Craigslist page. The ad directed her to a website owned by Pratt. She said she filled out the online form and attached pictures of herself.
“I had been applying to a lot of jobs and not having heard back, I was very intrigued to get $300 to do clothed modeling,” testified the woman. “I could have used the money.”
After completing the online form, Jane Doe 15 said she received an email from a man identifying himself as “Johnathon.”
Johnathon, who attorneys for the plaintiffs say is the alias for owner Pratt, gave her an offer she wasn’t expecting: Get paid $5,000 to have sex on camera.
The woman said she did not respond to the email. Court exhibits shown at the trial show the man then known as Johnathon followed up with another email. That was when Jane Doe 15 said the scheme began to unfold.
“He kept insisting I hear him out on the other offer,” she testified in court. “He said it would be thirty minutes of having sex, it would be $5000…he repeatedly said not online, not online, he said the videos would be on DVDs in Australia and other countries. I asked if I could do other modeling and he said no.”
She said she again did not respond. But, Pratt persisted, she said, continuing to tell her that the videos would be sold to private collectors in Australia or New Zealand and would not be released online.
“I wasn’t interested in doing porn. I knew how being in a porn could affect your future, your job opportunities, and how people believe you,” she said. “But he kept saying that no one would ever find out it wouldn’t go online.”
The woman said Pratt told her that he could provide a list of 200 women who would vouch for the company and ease any of her concerns about the distribution of the videos.
“He was very insistent that I hear the offer. Five positions, five to seven minutes each, it wouldn’t be in the U.S., it wouldn’t be online, it would be on DVD in other countries, and there were hundreds of girls who did not have any problems.”
She then spoke to two reference women, who assured her that everything Pratt had promised was true.
“It helped to know that girls do regular modeling and go to school, they were regular girls just like me.”
During the hour-long phone call, she said he insisted on booking her flight to San Diego.
“He said let’s book it just in case, we can always change it.”
Added Jane Doe 15, “I still wasn’t fully convinced yet.”
Soon after she got a text from two reference women, Amberlyn Carter and Kailyn Wright.
To see some of the text messages sent by the alleged “reference women,” scroll through below or click here .
“It was comforting to know I could talk to a woman who had done this before.”
Wright told her that she had done two shoots, and no one ever found out.
“It was encouraging to know that another cheerleader had done it,” said Jane Doe 15. “She had done two shoots and no one had discovered her.”
Again Jane Doe 15 said she asked, “These aren’t distributed in America right?”
Wright responded, “no prob and no they aren’t.”
Wright said there was no way anyone would find out.
“It got me a step closer and resolved all of my worries. I was assured it was safe by Wright and Johnathon and they had said no names, no internet, just DVDs in Australia.”
Jane Doe 15 agreed to come to San Diego the following week.
After arriving, she testified that she asked the videographer, the make-up artist, as well as the actor, Andre Garcia, that the videos would never be published online.
She said each had the same answer: No.
Minutes before the shoot, Jane Doe 15 said she had been given marijuana and then handed a stack of papers which she later learned was the contract. The videographer gave her the pages, “He just flips through them; this says these won’t go on the internet, only on DVD to Australia, and this one says no name would be used, and then he gave them to me and I couldn’t understand what he handed me so I just signed it.”
After the filming, she said she was paid $2,000 less because she had bruises and pale skin.
She left shortly after but not before taking screenshots of all of the text messages she exchanged with the man she knew as “Johnathon.”
“I feel humiliated.,” she said crying. “I’ve gotten random texts from strangers. It made me feel kind of unsafe that a stranger would find me like that. It made me feel unsafe and violated.”
Jane Doe 15 will take the stand again Thursday, August 22, for cross-examination. Also testifying will be the woman known as Jane Doe 12.
In a new podcast from NBC 7 Investigates called INSIGHT, journalists Dorian Hargrove and Tom Jones share some of the women’s stories who were featured in these videos and what they uncovered about the Girls Do Porn website, including the company’s ties to shell companies that were charged with laundering billions of dollars for a Mexican drug cartel and trafficking illegal weapons.
To listen to that podcast, click here or hit ‘Play’ below.

Сервисы Google доступны на этих языках: English

Сервисы Google доступны на этих языках: English

Asian Softcore Porn Movies
Iggy Azalea Topless Leaked
List Crawler

College Do Porn

Report Page